Blog

This is a follow-up to my previous post about Outreach Mag’s List of Innovative Churches. A quick look through the list below and there was something very interesting. Very few names of mainline denominations: Presbyterian, Methodists, etc.

I wonder why . . . my guesses

A – Mainline denominations are NOT INNOVATIVE

B – Mainline denominations don’t give a bucket of flying monkeys about being on such a list.

C – Some are connected to mainline denominations, but like MBCC, did not include it in the name.

D – Churches with female pastors are not recognized as innovative

E – All of the above

Whatcha think?

Click through to see the plexo

Share:

Related

7 Comments

Bo and DJ – Yeah, any list is going have its flaws and clearly most folks are savvy enough to see the contextual issues . . . I hope. I too fear that these kinds of churches will be seen as the ONLY way to go, which i think just reaffirms a one-size-fits all modernistic mentality.

Yes, to ask for the definition of innovation is at play here, and implicit to the survey would seem to suggest a bias for technology (since those who are responding and adding to the survey are those who read blogs and learning to use Squidoo to vote) and looking at the churches nominated thus far, most are doing innovative (by its default nomination, something new and creative) kinds of ministries with a result of reaching a lot of people. Innovation that only does something new and creative but doesn’t result in impacting a lot more people quantitatively doesn’t garner the kind of attention as innovation that does impact a lot of people.

Bruce. Great post. This list is the evangelical equivalent of the Food Network Awards. I.e., awards created to pad those within a sub-culture on the back. I think mainline are left out b/c many of those nominating probably don’t think that mainline churches are even Christian. I looked over the criteria for how these churches are ranked and the vast majority of the criteria have to do with the creative use of technology. The survey is terribly flawed in its means of analysis and the pool of participants. Most of the churches minister to suburban white congregations. In my book a church that is innovative is measured by: 1) Reaching out to a people have have traditionally been neglected by the church; 2) Initiating a ministry that has traditionally been neglected by the church (e.g., reconciliation); 3) Fostering authentic spirituality through creative means. Who gives a damn about whether you are multi-site or not? Lastly, how can you even rank innovation nationally when the church is to be unequivocally local – i.e., ministering to the particular needs of the local community. Innovation should only result out of meeting unique challenges particular to a local community. Since communities differ how can you even compare the level of innovation on a national scale?

I don’t know a lot of these churches, so knee (or neck) deep in my ignorance I wonder how innovative they really are? Are they all each and everyone uniquely innovative, or are they for the majority simply repeatedly reproducing an innovative model that seems to be the flavor of the year?

Bruce — Thanks for these great insights. I couldn’t agree with you more. These kinds of lists have some (very limited) usefulness, but I noticed an eerie homogeneous quality about most of them.
Not to split hairs, but I suppose it all comes down to how one defines “innovative.” If you mean, “bigger and newer” then this list is right on.
Point D is particularly troubling — why is it that these lists always assume male leadership? I see COTA listed, but no other churches led by women that I know of…

Bruce Reyes-Chow

One of those “consultant” types who spends his time, blogging, teaching, speaking and writing. He also happens to be a Presbyterian Teaching Elder, father to three daughters, smug San Franciscan and FANatic of the Oakland Athletics Baseball club. Thanks for reading.